Dear Don — and Fil and Luke,
1) If there is a vote, I’d vote FOR a footer
That should have been clear in my post. My post even suggested a wording for such a footer, with a link to the list web page for those who want to sub or unsub.
2) With respect to attachments, IF permitting attachments DOES NOT affect digest format adversely, then I vote to allow attachments. Again, that is if there is a vote.
While I am not entirely up on Listserv technology, this issue came up on other lists. At that time it was explained to me that attachments go out with normal, one-at-a-time posts. The problem atthat time was that the Listerv technology did not collect attachments to send WITH digest format subscriptions. Instead, the server structured attachments as code, placing them WITHIN the digest as code. The problem never affected ordinary posts, only posts aggregated into the digest format. If this has changed, then I’d have no objection to attachments.
But I am not going to bother with a Google list or Google+ circles. I find the formats obtrusive and difficult to use. Personally, I find many parallel services confusing and I don’t see what it would add to the list. Despite minor problems with Listserv, the list works well — the format is workable, the durable JISCMAIL archive is a major service, and the excellent search functions make the list a valuable long-term repository. I have unsubbed from most of the design research lists that I’ve been invited to join because they don’t work well and because the conversation rarely rises to the level of the conversation on PhD-Design.
While I agree with Carma that we can do better, this is a function of how people think and write, not a function of the technology. I don’t see anyone else doing better. What I see is lots of lists and web sites where people join in the hope that something exciting will turn up assisted by one or another new technology. I observe that most of these are typified either by a brief flurry of information followed by long lulls or total silence, or else they carry occasional short notes or comments with few carefully developed, well written posts, often none at all. Only improvements to thinking and writing make a difference. I can’t see the value of a Google+ or a Google list for a list that works reasonably well, so I won’t be joining. Incidentally, it would be the PhD-Design list owners — David Durling and Keith Russell -- who establish an “official” list if they deem it appropriate. It requires thought and energy to make one list work reasonably well, and even then we sometimes fail. I’m not planning to invest thought, energy, or time in yet another list.
So my votes are:
1) YES to a footer
2) YES to attachments, IF permitting attachments DOES NOT affect digest format adversely.
3) NO to a Google parallel.
Yours,
Ken
Professor Ken Friedman, PhD, DSc (hc), FDRS | University Distinguished Professor | Swinburne University of Technology | Melbourne, Australia | [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]> | Phone +61 3 9214 6102
Dear Don — and Fil and Luke,
1) If there is a vote, I’d vote FOR a footer
That should have been clear in my post. My post even suggested a wording for such a footer, with a link to the list web page for those who want to sub or unsub.
2) With respect to attachments, IF permitting attachments DOES NOT affect digest format adversely, then I vote to allow attachments. Again, that is if there is a vote.
While I am not entirely up on Listserv technology, this issue came up on other lists. At that time it was explained to me that attachments go out with normal, one-at-a-time posts. The problem atthat time was that the Listerv technology did not collect attachments to send WITH digest format subscriptions. Instead, the server structured attachments as code, placing them WITHIN the digest as code. The problem never affected ordinary posts, only posts aggregated into the digest format. If this has changed, then I’d have no objection to attachments.
But I am not going to bother with a Google list or Google+ circles. I find the formats obtrusive and difficult to use. Personally, I find many parallel services confusing and I don’t see what it would add to the list. Despite minor problems with Listserv, the list works well — the format is workable, the durable JISCMAIL archive is a major service, and the excellent search functions make the list a valuable long-term repository. I have unsubbed from most of the design research lists that I’ve been invited to join because they don’t work well and because the conversation rarely rises to the level of the conversation on PhD-Design.
While I agree with Carma that we can do better, this is a function of how people think and write, not a function of the technology. I don’t see anyone else doing better. What I see is lots of lists and web sites where people join in the hope that something exciting will turn up assisted by one or another new technology. I observe that most of these are typified either by a brief flurry of information followed by long lulls or total silence, or else they carry occasional short notes or comments with few carefully developed, well written posts, often none at all. Only improvements to thinking and writing make a difference. I can’t see the value of a Google+ or a Google list for a list that works reasonably well, so I won’t be joining. It requires thought and energy to make one list work reasonably well, and even then we sometimes fail. I’m not planning to invest thought, energy, or time in yet another list.
So my votes are:
1) YES to a footer
2) YES to attachments, IF permitting attachments DOES NOT affect digest format adversely.
3) NO to a Google parallel.
Yours,
Ken
Professor Ken Friedman, PhD, DSc (hc), FDRS | University Distinguished Professor | Swinburne University of Technology | Melbourne, Australia | [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]> | Phone +61 3 9214 6102
|